If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Rand Paul lays down the line on Obama's imperial ambitions: "I'm against having a king...I think having a monarch is what we fought the American Revolution over"   (politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com) divider line 628
    More: Hero, obama, Vice President Joe Biden, Christian Broadcasting Network, White House Press Secretary, Rand Paul, assault weapons, NRA  
•       •       •

12832 clicks; posted to Politics » on 16 Jan 2013 at 10:17 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



628 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-16 11:43:17 AM

fisker: Is this the same thing as ordering eggs and bacon for breakfast and then telling everyone you don't like eating feces only to realize that you are not eating feces but instead you are eating regular eggs and bacon but proceed to make a delusional comparison that doesn't exist?


Yes.
 
2013-01-16 11:43:28 AM
KINGS DO NOT "ANNOUNCE PROPOSALS" YOU IDIOT

/ashamed he had to use caps
 
2013-01-16 11:44:49 AM

Wangiss: DamnYankees: Corvus: Your aware that the monarchy of uk gets to decide if someone can be PM or not and can veto any law?

They haven't done that in literally over 300 years. If they did so now no one would obey it.

I actually like the monarch system the way it is now. It's like having a legitimate fallback government. I figure if Parliament ever goes full derp, the English (if not all the British) will probably be all, "Alright, you guys are fired. Really, we're actually going to hang you all, right now in this very building. Thanks for getting together in one place. King Charles, you're the interim ruler, but we're not putting up with you for more than two years while we figure this out. We're keeping this rope hanging right here from the speaker system, so watch it."


That actually doesn't sound that bad...nice fall back system. If our government goes full retard (which I hear you are never supposed to do) then we are sorta effed. It is a mixture of parliamentary government and constitutional monarchy.
 
2013-01-16 11:44:57 AM

Bf+: Monarch

I left out Reptoid for now-- It's just a matter of time though.
Any others I missed?


tyrant

//NOT a Republican.
 
2013-01-16 11:46:23 AM
Rand Paul seems to be conveniently forgetting the illegal war in Iraq. fark him.
 
2013-01-16 11:46:30 AM

DamnYankees: Cythraul: After reading A People's History, I got the impression that it was just a bunch of rich people over here who didn't like other rich people across the ocean telling them what to do and preventing them from getting even richer.

That's basically right. It's what makes our revolution much less interesting and dramatic than the French Revolution.


Then again, they are on their fifth republic, while we are still on our first.

/A new constitutional convention would be quite exciting right about now.
 
2013-01-16 11:46:45 AM

Timmy the Tumor: Again, your use of the "relative filth" argument ("well, yeah, our guy is doing something that sucks, but it doesn't suck as much as what ______ did, so it's ok") is what is weak here.


Having your country become known as the place where torture and indefinite detention is condoned---meh.

Outlawing super-duper guns: OMGWTF IMPEACH!!!
 
2013-01-16 11:46:51 AM
You know who else was against having a king? The Romans, that's who. Instead they had two Consuls, elected for a single year's term to carry supreme executive power. Almost like having a President, except that there was two, presumably to avoid accusations of kingship.
 
2013-01-16 11:46:59 AM

BMFPitt: But his VP has openly discussed bypassing the legislature to create a de facto new law.


No, he hasn't. And you need to go back to your teachers and ask, no, demand, that they do a better job explaining what executive orders are.
 
2013-01-16 11:47:27 AM

Lost Thought 00: I remember that classic pledge, "No taxation with Heriditary Rule!"


I usually get Monarchy when I build the Oracle. By that time, I usually have at least a 10% tax rate.
 
2013-01-16 11:47:40 AM

Rocket To Russia: Amos Quito: jylcat: TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!


[daviding.com image 475x281]


We've come a long way, baby.

Shouldn't that slogan have the word "NO" at the front of it? Or is this a photoshoppy joke? Do DC's plates really look like that?!


Oh man I'm such an idjit, I just learned that the District of Columbia has no representatives in Congress, but they do pay taxes. Really, I didn't know.
 
2013-01-16 11:48:04 AM

justpiper.com

Unavailable for comment
 
2013-01-16 11:48:10 AM

BMFPitt: I am curious as to what you imagine I think inaccurately about the Constitution.


You apparently think all executive orders are illegal.
 
2013-01-16 11:48:54 AM

Snarfangel: Then again, they are on their fifth republic, while we are still on our first.


We're not really on our first. We just don't call it anything different.
 
2013-01-16 11:49:46 AM

Rocket To Russia: Rocket To Russia: Amos Quito: jylcat: TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!


[daviding.com image 475x281]


We've come a long way, baby.

Shouldn't that slogan have the word "NO" at the front of it? Or is this a photoshoppy joke? Do DC's plates really look like that?!

Oh man I'm such an idjit, I just learned that the District of Columbia has no representatives in Congress, but they do pay taxes. Really, I didn't know.


Technically, they have a non-voting representative in the House.
 
2013-01-16 11:49:51 AM

doubled99: DamnYankees [TotalFark]

Then he's an idiot. That's NOT why we fought the American Revolution. Like, at all.

We didn't fight because we had a monarch. We fought because we didn't have representation in Parliament.

No, stupid, we fought it over slavery


No, moran, we fought it to prevent the spread of Communism into southeast Asia.
 
2013-01-16 11:51:04 AM

SuperT: thinking about this, has anyone told these people that magazines are basically just metal boxes with a spring in them? or that there are already a gobillion "high capacity" versions of them in existence?


That doesn't really matter. What Americans are looking for is something to assuage their guilt over the problem. They don't really want to fix the problem, because that would take a lot of money and time. Instead, they'd just like to be able to tell themselves that they tried to fix the problem and then they can go on with their self-centered existences.

Ever notice that when someone is killed with a handgun the news reports that it was a "gun" but if someone is killed with a non-handgun then they make sure to point out what type of gun it was?

Americans know that IF banning guns really did help things, then it would be logical to ban the guns that are causing the most deaths, which would be handguns by a heyooge margin. But nobody has the guts to try to ban handguns, so they go after the easy targets - the "assault weapons" and the large-capacity magazines.
 
2013-01-16 11:52:35 AM
From my basic math skills, I count only 1 Obama in office compared to the number of Bushes, Roosevelts, and Adams.
 
2013-01-16 11:52:36 AM

mittromneysdog: Technically, they have a non-voting representative in the House.


Technically, I have a non running van in the driveway.
 
2013-01-16 11:52:49 AM

DiamondDave: So, you folks would be A-OK with GWB using executive orders to circumvent the Constitution?

What am I saying? Of course you would! Because you're not a bunch of hypocrites.


If the orders are unconstitutional, they won't stand anyways, but you already knew that, ya dick.
 
2013-01-16 11:52:58 AM

Corvus: Deep Contact: They've been acting like kings since JFK.

Have you heard of the emancipation proclamation?


I don't listen to hip-hop.
 
2013-01-16 11:53:31 AM

tricycleracer: that's the fact that a bunch of slave-owning, aristocratic, white males didn't want to pay their taxes.


You're forgetting the "without representation" part.

But I think that they were more shrewd than that. I think that they saw the endless bounty of the new land and said, "screw the Brits! Let's cut them out of the business deal and keep all of this for ourselves!"
 
2013-01-16 11:55:23 AM

JerkStore: doubled99: DamnYankees [TotalFark]

Then he's an idiot. That's NOT why we fought the American Revolution. Like, at all.

We didn't fight because we had a monarch. We fought because we didn't have representation in Parliament.

No, stupid, we fought it over slavery

No, moran, we fought it to prevent the spread of Communism into southeast Asia.


Ah, yes, the Jenga theory, where if you pull out one little block the entire capitalist society collapses.

Or was the the Lincoln Log theory, were you have a very drafty house if you lost one piece? Anyway, I know a game was involved. Checkers? Something like that, anyway.
 
2013-01-16 11:55:30 AM
So I guess he doesn't mind having a plutocracy instead?
 
2013-01-16 11:55:36 AM

Corvus: DamnYankees: Corvus: The have a monarchy that allows the parliament to run things. Try again.

No they don't. Please.

Your aware that the monarchy of uk gets to decide if someone can be PM or not and can veto any law?


The office of PM is indeed chosen by the monarch, and that choice then has nothing at all but the chance to attempt to form a government. Parliament does not have to accept their leadership. The office pf PM bears little relationship to the president of a republic. As far as veto over law, please. Parliament retains power through the purse, if nothing else. They set the budget for the royal family.
 
2013-01-16 11:56:48 AM

someonelse: BMFPitt: But his VP has openly discussed bypassing the legislature to create a de facto new law.

No, he hasn't. And you need to go back to your teachers and ask, no, demand, that they do a better job explaining what executive orders are.


I know what they are supposed to be. And it is overwhelmingly likely that they will think better of it and back off.

But if you think that, for example, Executive Order 13440 was not an unconstitutional act, nor a de facto new law, then I would love to hear your reasoning.
 
2013-01-16 11:57:02 AM

Timmy the Tumor: So, you guys are ok with Obama skipping around Congress on the second-most inflammatory issue (second to abortion) in politics by issuing an executive order?


NO. However, just out of curiosity, I did some googling to see just how many executive orders King Obama has issued, and it turns out that he's issued fewer than any other president in the last 100 years, so I'm not going to get my panties all in a bunch just yet...
 
2013-01-16 11:57:05 AM

DamnYankees: Then he's an idiot. That's NOT why we fought the American Revolution. Like, at all.

We didn't fight because we had a monarch. We fought because we didn't have representation in Parliament.


He's not an idiot - he's unencumbered by the burdens of reality, free to imagine what he wants.
 
2013-01-16 11:57:16 AM
F*CK YOU RAND PAUL YOU COCK
 
2013-01-16 11:57:16 AM

Lando Lincoln: tricycleracer: that's the fact that a bunch of slave-owning, aristocratic, white males didn't want to pay their taxes.

You're forgetting the "without representation" part.

But I think that they were more shrewd than that. I think that they saw the endless bounty of the new land and said, "screw the Brits! Let's cut them out of the business deal and keep all of this for ourselves!"


That's a quote from Dazed and Confused.
 
2013-01-16 11:58:04 AM

jayhawk88: What other magical things that will never happen are you against, Rand? Are you against Obama ripping the head off a lamb and feasting on it's still-warm blood during the inauguration? Are you against Obama revealing himself as the alien leader of the Rigilian Federation, and ordering his gunships to begin rounding up slaves for use in Vespene Gas factories?


They require more after all

/I love the smell of nostalgia in the morning
 
2013-01-16 11:58:41 AM

DeathCipris: Wangiss: DamnYankees: Corvus: Your aware that the monarchy of uk gets to decide if someone can be PM or not and can veto any law?

They haven't done that in literally over 300 years. If they did so now no one would obey it.

I actually like the monarch system the way it is now. It's like having a legitimate fallback government. I figure if Parliament ever goes full derp, the English (if not all the British) will probably be all, "Alright, you guys are fired. Really, we're actually going to hang you all, right now in this very building. Thanks for getting together in one place. King Charles, you're the interim ruler, but we're not putting up with you for more than two years while we figure this out. We're keeping this rope hanging right here from the speaker system, so watch it."

That actually doesn't sound that bad...nice fall back system. If our government goes full retard (which I hear you are never supposed to do) then we are sorta effed. It is a mixture of parliamentary government and constitutional monarchy.


We would break into nations, I think. There are a few really interesting sociological break-outs I've seen--one for nine nations, one for four that I can't find.

The way American ideologies break by geography is too darn convenient to pass up. Let the Cowboys have their Castle Doctrine and the Nor'easters have their Plutocrat Liberalism; I don't care. There would be some mass migration while the Massachusetts Catholics absconded to warmer, more religious climes, trading places with poor welfare-staters looking for equality up North. Montana and Wyoming wouldn't change a bit. No more need for Blue or Red states, just nation states with a more cohesive and stable ideology. Then we could have a peaceful relationship like the European Union has (sometimes barely) managed for 60 years. I think it would be great to have a federation of nation states instead of the One Ideological Nation that was taken over by powers I don't care to list long ago. You may say that I'm a dreamer...
 
2013-01-16 11:59:19 AM
Drudge is reporting one of the proposals is to require doctors to ask their patients if they have a gun in their home.

... And here people thought Obamacare was about health care.


What I worry is that this is that the party in control could use government control over doctors and access to health care to force their politics on people.  In the above example, the government denies health care to gun owners.  Why would the government be pressing doctors to find out if their patients own a gun or not?  How is that at all relevant to caring for them outside of treating an actual gunshot wound?
 
2013-01-16 11:59:25 AM

Lando Lincoln: SuperT: thinking about this, has anyone told these people that magazines are basically just metal boxes with a spring in them? or that there are already a gobillion "high capacity" versions of them in existence?

That doesn't really matter. What Americans are looking for is something to assuage their guilt over the problem. They don't really want to fix the problem, because that would take a lot of money and time. Instead, they'd just like to be able to tell themselves that they tried to fix the problem and then they can go on with their self-centered existences.

Ever notice that when someone is killed with a handgun the news reports that it was a "gun" but if someone is killed with a non-handgun then they make sure to point out what type of gun it was?

Americans know that IF banning guns really did help things, then it would be logical to ban the guns that are causing the most deaths, which would be handguns by a heyooge margin. But nobody has the guts to try to ban handguns, so they go after the easy targets - the "assault weapons" and the large-capacity magazines.


It is far easier to have a debate about the tools used, as opposed to discuss the real difficulties we face. The debate needs to be about crime. About violent crime, and what leads folks to decide that it IS an alternative. That means a discussion on economic security, on health care both physical and mental, that means looking at economic mobility, and the reasons folks turn to violent crime as a method to enhance their lot, as well as looking at what sort of society we've created.

That's hard. That's a scary conversation, because a LOT of folks profit handily from the way things are set up right now, and examining it might lead us to the conclusion that maybe it's not a terribly healthy society. No one wants to admit that. No one wants to look too closely even NEAR that curtain, let alone look behind it. Because if we do, we might actually decide that something has to be done to fix that. And having ignored it for so long, it might lead folks to conclude that we've done a botched job of keeping an eye on things, and that we've been pretty much ignoring a lot of pain and suffering for fairly superficial reasons.

No one wants to even admit that we've pooped in our own dog dish, and certainly no one wants to clean it up. So, better, we talk about tools used in the commission of crimes, rather than look to why folks commit them in the first place.
 
2013-01-16 12:00:03 PM

SlothB77: In the above example, the government denies health care to gun owners.


LOLWUT
 
2013-01-16 12:00:29 PM

Timmy the Tumor: So, you guys are ok with Obama skipping around Congress on the second-most inflammatory issue (second to abortion) in politics by issuing an executive order?


Actually President Obama cannot enact any executive order which does not come from an authority already given to him from congress as law. So in all reality he is not "skipping around congress" but choosing how he enforces existing law, which is his job as written in the constitution. If any of ths "enforcement" of existing laws by executive order violates the constitution, the Supreme Court can deem it unconstitutional and force that enforcement to stop.
 
2013-01-16 12:00:32 PM

Brick-House: DamnYankees: Then he's an idiot. That's NOT why we fought the American Revolution. Like, at all.

We didn't fight because we had a monarch. We fought because we didn't have representation in Parliament.

You make a valid point, now since we do have representation, let congress pass or not pass bills for King President Obama to sign or veto as the system is design to do. Ruling by decree is not the way this government works


Our congress wouldn't agree on a declaration that puppies are cute unless they got 40B of pork smacked on to it. The GOP filibusters everything, the House doesn't even bother to vote on more than 70 percent of bills. The idea that congress is the solution is just plain silly.
 
2013-01-16 12:00:43 PM

someonelse: BMFPitt: I am curious as to what you imagine I think inaccurately about the Constitution.

You apparently think all executive orders are illegal.


Is that a half-hearted strawman, or do you not understand the difference between a specific case and a blanket statement?
 
2013-01-16 12:02:06 PM

Timmy the Tumor: So, you guys are ok with Obama skipping around Congress on the second-most inflammatory issue (second to abortion) in politics by issuing an executive order?


Of course they are. You wouldnt hear a peep if someone triied the end run around abortion im sure.

They will however, use stupid slang like they are talking to a hillbilly to paint you as their own conservative boogie man, while the cowards dangle their wrists limply and try to take guns away.
 
2013-01-16 12:02:09 PM
Are the greenlightey people still drunk?

Am I still drunk?

Hero tag?!?

Nonono, I'm not still drunk... I need to start drinking.
 
2013-01-16 12:02:54 PM

Amos Quito: jylcat: TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!

But ok, thanks for playing Rand Paul.


[daviding.com image 475x281]


We've come a long way, baby.


We may have made it for a time but when people inside and outside of the country can counterfeit what ever amount they want to get their way you have TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION.

When they counterfeit the money supply they don't add anything to our pile of stuff they just shift the property lines.
 
2013-01-16 12:03:09 PM

david_gaithersburg: I can't wait until this guy is president.


Good thing for us that the rest of the country isn't farking retarded like Florida.
 
2013-01-16 12:03:34 PM
I think the potential effectiveness of a plan is directly related to how pissed off the GOP gets as they tend to protect the superficial and denounce anything approaching "critical thinking". So this has potential.

And there is plenty of profit to be made in prolonging the problem.
 
2013-01-16 12:03:48 PM

Corvus: DamnYankees: Corvus: Like I said legally the monarchy is still in charge. Practically they are not. You are wrong.

You actually didn't say "legally" in your Boobies.

Legally is all that matters. What is said was right. Holy crap admit you we're wrong and go on.


For the sake of an argument, legal may be all that matters, but because you stated that the crown lets parliament run things it implies real world reality. Parliament has the right to refuse to finance the royals or to abolish them.
 
2013-01-16 12:04:22 PM

Wangiss: DeathCipris: Wangiss: DamnYankees: Corvus: Your aware that the monarchy of uk gets to decide if someone can be PM or not and can veto any law?

They haven't done that in literally over 300 years. If they did so now no one would obey it.

I actually like the monarch system the way it is now. It's like having a legitimate fallback government. I figure if Parliament ever goes full derp, the English (if not all the British) will probably be all, "Alright, you guys are fired. Really, we're actually going to hang you all, right now in this very building. Thanks for getting together in one place. King Charles, you're the interim ruler, but we're not putting up with you for more than two years while we figure this out. We're keeping this rope hanging right here from the speaker system, so watch it."

That actually doesn't sound that bad...nice fall back system. If our government goes full retard (which I hear you are never supposed to do) then we are sorta effed. It is a mixture of parliamentary government and constitutional monarchy.

We would break into nations, I think. There are a few really interesting sociological break-outs I've seen--one for nine nations, one for four that I can't find.

The way American ideologies break by geography is too darn convenient to pass up. Let the Cowboys have their Castle Doctrine and the Nor'easters have their Plutocrat Liberalism; I don't care. There would be some mass migration while the Massachusetts Catholics absconded to warmer, more religious climes, trading places with poor welfare-staters looking for equality up North. Montana and Wyoming wouldn't change a bit. No more need for Blue or Red states, just nation states with a more cohesive and stable ideology. Then we could have a peaceful relationship like the European Union has (sometimes barely) managed for 60 years. I think it would be great to have a federation of nation states instead of the One Ideological Nation that was taken over by powers I don't care to lis ...


We'd end up with a southern theocracy that would be rampant with poverty and disease and probably down on the charts in regards to standards of living. We'd have an invasion of the north by the south within 20 years.
 
2013-01-16 12:05:14 PM

SlothB77: Drudge is reporting


media.giantbomb.com
 
2013-01-16 12:05:55 PM

Timmy the Tumor: So, you guys are ok with Obama skipping around Congress on the second-most inflammatory issue (second to abortion) in politics by issuing an executive order?


I guess if a Republican is in office next, he could skip around Congress and the Supreme Court, and make abortions illegal.
That would be ok, right?

Right?

Even though the revolution was over taxation, the founding fathers obviously had no love for the monarchy. Otherwise, we would have kings, and not an elected president and congress.
 
2013-01-16 12:06:15 PM

Wangiss: DeathCipris: Wangiss: DamnYankees: Corvus: Your aware that the monarchy of uk gets to decide if someone can be PM or not and can veto any law?

They haven't done that in literally over 300 years. If they did so now no one would obey it.

I actually like the monarch system the way it is now. It's like having a legitimate fallback government. I figure if Parliament ever goes full derp, the English (if not all the British) will probably be all, "Alright, you guys are fired. Really, we're actually going to hang you all, right now in this very building. Thanks for getting together in one place. King Charles, you're the interim ruler, but we're not putting up with you for more than two years while we figure this out. We're keeping this rope hanging right here from the speaker system, so watch it."

That actually doesn't sound that bad...nice fall back system. If our government goes full retard (which I hear you are never supposed to do) then we are sorta effed. It is a mixture of parliamentary government and constitutional monarchy.

We would break into nations, I think. There are a few really interesting sociological break-outs I've seen--one for nine nations, one for four that I can't find.

The way American ideologies break by geography is too darn convenient to pass up. Let the Cowboys have their Castle Doctrine and the Nor'easters have their Plutocrat Liberalism; I don't care. There would be some mass migration while the Massachusetts Catholics absconded to warmer, more religious climes, trading places with poor welfare-staters looking for equality up North. Montana and Wyoming wouldn't change a bit. No more need for Blue or Red states, just nation states with a more cohesive and stable ideology. Then we could have a peaceful relationship like the European Union has (sometimes barely) managed for 60 years. I think it would be great to have a federation of nation states instead of the One Ideological Nation that was taken over by powers I don't care to lis ...


Mmm...yea, I would leave that clusterfark before it got off the ground. It is going to be hell trying to get boundaries and then there will be disagreements in politics, possession of manufacturing bases, monetary/funding problems, laws, and that is just getting started.
 
2013-01-16 12:06:29 PM
Obama is the biggest piece of shiat this country has ever seen
Biden has his nose so far up Obamas ass that hes starting to smell like him
now he's on tv with children on stage with him, what an ass, and a coward, where are his children, oh that's right, their in school with armed guards protecting them, your kids don't deserve that kind of protection, their not worthy
how many semiautomatic guns are around him with more than 7 rounds, yet again he's worthy, you're not
 
2013-01-16 12:06:36 PM
www.ladyofthecake.com

It's good to be the king.
 
Displayed 50 of 628 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report